Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

High-speed rail's many benefits

Most developed nations now have high-speed rail, the author writes. | AP Photo

A public-private partnership maintains public control of infrastructure assets while the private sector upgrades infrastructure and passenger service. Private investors would finance part of the construction and invest in real estate development around the train stations, and private rail operators would compete for millions of passengers while servicing a huge regional market. Amtrak could upgrade the Acela into a true high-speed rail service and build on its 2011 success of almost $2 billion in ticket revenue and a record-breaking 30 million passengers.

In California, where the US High Speed Rail Association is hosting a conference in San Francisco this week, a high-speed rail corridor is also viable because of major population centers from Sacramento to San Jose to San Francisco, then south through the Central Valley to Los Angeles and San Diego. Gov. Jerry Brown and Dan Richard, the new chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority are planning to begin construction next year of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting the major cities.

Text Size

-

+

reset

This entire project is now projected to be completed over 30 years at a cost of $68 billion. In a state with high unemployment, it is expected to create an estimated 150,000 jobs during construction, and 450,000 related jobs along the corridor. It is projected to remove more than 1 million automobiles and use only 30 percent of the energy needed for airplanes.

A 2008 California ballot proposition authorized financing for initial construction, along with requirements for federal matching funds. California received some 2009 stimulus funding. It also has a $3.3 billion Department of Transportation grant for construction in the Central Valley, the backbone of the system, where trains are expected to run at top speeds of 220 mph.

The CHSRA is now moving ahead with construction plans for the Central Valley, due to begin in 2013 and finish in 2017, at a cost of $6 billion.

Brown has long been strongly committed to high-speed rail as a transportation alternative for the state’s rapidly growing population. He is supported by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and co-chairwoman of the conference committee of the surface transportation bill, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose slogan “It’s About Time” has become a rallying cry for progressive Californians.

The political winds are beginning to shift, and some elected officials see that there can be political consequences from strongly opposing high-speed rail. The governors on record as opposing projects are among the least popular — including Rick Scott in Florida, who rejected federal money. A new political group is now forming Republicans for Rail. There is also talk of starting a rail super PAC to generate money and grass-roots support for additional rail transit investments.

If this political shift continues in the crucial 2012 elections, prospects for U.S. high-speed rail, particularly along the East and West Coasts, could finally brighten.

Thomas Hart Jr. is director of government relations at Quarles & Brady, and vice president of government affairs for the US High Speed Rail Association.

The fatal flaw of high-speed rail is that it has to stop, and frequently for it to be useful to the population centers the train travels through. If the train doesn't stop in a town, there is no reason for that town to put up with the noise and hazards connected with tons of metal flying by at 200 mph. If the train actually stops at the town, a train that can travel at 200 mph is useless. There is also the problem of having tracks clear to operate the superfast train. If an express is behind a local, the local sets the speed of the faster train. That is the reality of light and heavy rail. (I have used commuter trains for years, so I know what I am talking about, BTW)

The problem of rapid rail has nothing to do with speed. It has everything to do with tracks running parallel to each other on a designated route, allowing locals, express, high-speed/inter-urban and (of course) freight trains to operate in the same corridor. If we built right-of-ways with more than one track per direction, even the trains we already have in service will move far faster, but high-speed trains are 'sexy' for politicians like Joe Biden and Harry Reid who aren't so much interested in providing cheap, efficient transportation as they are in controlling population movement and building monuments to themselves.

Take that same rail corridor and build a PODTrans (I made that up- Personal On Demand Transportation) track above it. The vehicle is individual Pods that can themselves go 200 miles per hour. They each hold 2-6 people and have no "driver".

When the POD reaches its destination it "exits" the track and stops at the station. But because the station is lower profile there could be more of them.

So some drawbacks to "High Speed Rail"

Have to wait for the next train, on a set schedule. Each train has expensive people running them. Unused seating capacity- or the opposite, a too full train. Stops at every stop. Expensive right of way issues, expensive track. And MarchHare is right- other train traffic slows them down.

With the PODTrans "system"

On demand vehicle. Ready at the station/stop when you are. Order it from mobile phone. Full speed loop- PODS exit the track when reaching their destination. All electric PODS could be solar charged and automatically placed in service when charged. Track could run along highway medians- suspended in the air under a thin track (the lower weight per vehicle means less structure is needed than say, Disney's Monorail) No empty seats- or they are at least paid for if they are empty. Tracks could be built do go further into cities, down major streets, etc, along the path and in tandem with ariel electric service.

Basically- it's mass transit that is economical to build and that people will actually use. And if you look at the emissions of Cars vs Rail vs PODTrans- PODTrans could likely move as many people miles for the same or less emissions than rail- if only because of the solar power. But I bet the vehicles could be built cheaper too.

We (the United States, the Uk or any other Country with little money to spend and a need for more rail) DON'T NEED High Speed Rail...what we NEED is a common sense, regular speed (or even slow speed) LOW COST rail service connecting LOTS of DOTS on the MAP. NOT one straight bullet train right up the coast from point A to point B that costs too much, both in construction and in ticketing. We NEED Trains like in Switzerland or the Netherlands, trains that run on time, are not overly sleek or streamlined (expensive) but are comfortable, run on time and get you where you want to go...everytime...

"High Speed Rail" is a very bad idea for three obvious reasons. First, it is not a national transportation solution even if you foolishly buy into the idea that it is needed on either coast. If those on these coast want it, form a regional association and buy it for yourself. However, I seriously doubt that if such associations existed they would be able to find lenders foolish enough to care the paper.

Second, high speed rail isn't high speed. The fact that a train can go over 200 miles per hour doesn't mean that the transit time from point A to point B for the traveler would be high speed. Trains have to make frequent stops to take on and discharge passenger in order to even come close to achieving the load factors needed to make the system even remotely economical. These stops drag down the average speed over the route to something that certainly isn't "high speed". And lets not forget that for most people the train station isn't their destination. Once arriving there, passengers then have to secure transportation to their actual destination. Portal to portal the transit time for rail travel, "high speed" or not, will be greater than other transportation solutions.

Last, passenger rail service doesn't carry its own costs. Because of reason number two people correctly choose not to ride trains if they can avoid doing so. Other tax payers have to subsidize such travel. Amtrak has never generated the revenue needed to support the system and adding high speed trains to the system won't change that fact. And, even if you believe that this type of project falls within Congresses enumerated responsibilities, which I do not, in order to cover the shortfall, general tax revenues are either diverted from other public projects with higher utility or taxes have to be increased.

Trains are good for one task in America--moving goods--clogging up the exiting rail infrastructure with "high speed" trains who would be carrying an insignificant number of people would simply interfere with and slow down the movement of freight traffic on the system. Mr. Hart needs to think more like a logistician and less like Casey the engineer. Passenger rail service belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st.

Great idea, lets spend billions on choo choos, money we don't have, over pay for the choo choo because of the Davis Bacon Act, and then turn them into tax payer black holes because of course we are not paying enough in taxes already.

The cost of the choo choo in CA has balloned to over 100 billion for just on line. Because why, liberal lie about the real costs every single time.

If the train doesn't stop in a town, there is no reason for that town to put up with the noise and hazards connected with tons of metal flying by at 200 mph.

The same can be said of highways. Many highways don't actually have exits at half the towns they go through. The towns put up with it anyway, because they have to.

There is also the problem of having tracks clear to operate the superfast train. If an express is behind a local, the local sets the speed of the faster train.

If properly implemented, high-speed trains would run on a different set of tracks, making this point moot.

Will someone tell me what form of energy will be used to power the train.

High speed trains generally run on electric motors. This does have the caveat that the railroad must be electrified to support high-speed traffic. Many parts of the U.S. railroad system still lack electrification. (Largely due to 30 years of public neglect.)

It is way more inexpensive to buy all the projected riders a brand new Caddilac than it is to fund this pig. Rep. John Mica has been pushing this garbage for a long time as it is his 65 billion dolar schtick. He pushed the same garbage in Florida. He and his proposal were soundly rejected. This is nothing more than another payola opportunity for poloticians . ----Rep.-Mica needs to be re-called

High speed rail is a boondoggle to nowhere, will never make a profit, and is not a viable national transportation goal. If it were profitable, the private sector would have developed it way before now. It isn't and the private sector stayed clear away. That's why we have a booming airline industry. Only goverment (read taxpayer funded investment and maintenance) would make it possible - by force. By the way, whatever happenend to trains run by magnetic levitation?

We are going about it the only way that it will succeed politically. That is, to spend billions on it, and then subsidize it for the rest of its existence, kind of like what we're doing with the airlines now.

It won't work here because people want things but they don't want to pay for it. We'd all be riding trains right now if we had to pay the free market price for gas and airline fare. (True, Amtrak gets a subsidy, but it's miniscule in comparison.)

Please understand this is just noise until we get an economy that can pay for itself and make substantial progress on the national debt.

While I appreciate the courage to express your opinion on what you think is an important topic... I wish you, the UFO conspiracy theorists, the 2012-is-the-end-of-the-world-ers and other such advocates might manage to tuck away your passion for a little while and stay focused, really focused on the single most important threat to this country in a long, long time.